I don’t understand how the Spirit would be insulted by someone asking an honest question of someone more knowledgeable on the subject. Sounds like the same reasoning Muslims give when they go off when someone “insults” Mohammad… which is, of course, no reason at all.
 February 20, 2015 at 12:07am
She wasn’t “targeted”… they were long time customers, who regularly bought flowers in her shop. They went to buy flowers in their regular flower shop for a special occasion and were turned away because of what the special occasion was.
 February 9, 2015 at 2:01pm
I see Alabama is still following their long and proud tradition… seeing how they didn’t even bother to repeal their anti-miscegenation laws until 2000, when the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in 1967.
You fruit bats are lucky God found me ... Ten years ago I would have just stuffed you idiots back n the closet...
[-2] February 2, 2015 at 1:32pm
They were willing to make the cake… just not include the wording. If the guy had actually quoted Scripture, I don’t think there would have been a problem… but he didn’t… even he admits that.
January 23, 2015 at 1:40pm
So you’re saying the retailer — in this case a baker — has the right to know what the consumer is doing with the product they are purchasing? AND if the retailer does not agree with how the product is to be used, has the right to refuse to sell?
January 22, 2015 at 4:31pm
Except for the fact that most wedding cakes do not have messages written on them. I’ve never been to a wedding where there was something written on the cake… most of them have floral or themed designs. But I’m sure there are people who do have things written on their wedding cakes.
January 22, 2015 at 4:26pm
Here’s the difference between the 2 cases. This baker never refused to bake a cake. The baker did refuse to add offending images or wording to the cake in question, but DID offer the supplies so the buyer could add their own images and wording to the cake. In the other case, the baker refused to bake a cake because of where the cake was going to be displayed/used/eaten… this baker never did that. That’s a huge difference.
There are slight differences but it still goes back to what the bakery owner believes they should be using their business for. In this case, this baker didn’t feel mean spirited, anti-gay words/sentiment should be created in her business. In the case of the christian bakers, they didn’t believe, because of their faith, that gay marriage was the right path and didn’t feel THAT should be created in their business. I still think it should be up to the store owner what they want to create/bake in their own store.
What ever happened to store owners having rights?? Lord knows they paid for the permits and licenses to open in the first place.
 December 17, 2014 at 11:20am
Oh please… I’m 6’6″… I have people all the time ask me to help them get things off top shelves… and not just at stores… sometimes at their own homes.
[-2] December 12, 2014 at 7:08pm
Stock photos or not… PFOX put up two different photos of the same guy, then put words next to those photos to indicate that they are twins. It’s deceitful, and they have been caught attempting to deceive the public.
 December 12, 2014 at 3:19pm
So a “christian” group uses false images to send message about their work…. isn’t that against one of the 10 commandments?? How can you trust anything they say if they so blatantly mislead people with false advertising?
The billboard does not say this individual it's an example STOCK photo _ I'm not saying it's right but the point their making is about TWIN RESEARCH not a particular individual - So don't be so quick to judge and group all people together that would be like me assuming all liberal are not too bright because of your silly post.
Yeah, much like the media claiming Obama was the Grand Uniter a few long years back. At least some of us got the real message behind what was being presented.
tmarends--- isn’t that against one of the 10 commandments??-----You do know the Ten commandments are there for ANYONE to read?.Hint,Hint.
Christians are like liberals in that they don't care if they have to lie or disregard facts if it means promoting their own ideas.
you're confusing the church, with Christians. two totally different things
June 20, 2013 at 5:46pm
These comments are interesting. I wonder how many people who are so against homosexuals are condemned by Christ’s own words by being remarried after a divorce for a reason other than death, abandonment, or infidelity?? (By the way, the person who abandons his/her spouse, or the one who was unfaithful, can not, Biblically, remarry.) Or how many have friends and/or family members in a sinful, according to the Bible, remarriage?? Do you also, with the same vim and vigor, also rebuke those sinful remarriages?? Both publicly and in their face?? Somehow I seriously doubt that you do.
To answer your question, I don't usually preach about sin because I'm not a preacher. But if anyone asked for my opinion, I would tell them.
More importantly, having had one marriage which was ended on grounds which were not Biblical, I now see that it is imperative for the rest of my life to live in celibacy -- which I am. Strictly.
Does that answer your question?
That still does not make homosexuality okay to do.
Personally i find that sad to hear. I think love is one of the greatest and most difficult values we can achieve in life. The idea that someone is locking themselves out of it because of a dogmatic religious belief seems unfortunate.
There is always Gods love so you have nothing to fear in regards to them lacking love.
January 12, 2013 at 6:28pm
Because of what? You’re quoting a verse that starts with “Because of this”… so I want to know because of what?? What happened PRIOR to those words that caused what happened AFTER?? Do you even know??
January 12, 2013 at 12:21pm
The problem with you statement is that abomination and sin are not interchangeable terms. Abomination, as used in the Bible, is a cultural taboo. For example, according to the book of Exodus, it was an abomination to the Egyptians if they were to share a meal with the Hebrews. However, it was NOT an abomination to the Hebrews. Every place abomination appears in the Bible it is a cultural thing, not a sin.
January 12, 2013 at 12:18pm
Alan Chambers, the CEO of Exodus Intl, said last year that 99% of homosexuals will not see a change in their orientation.
In Romans 1, Paul writes about idol worshipers who engaged in same-gender sexual relations as part of the worship. This was common in both Greece and Rome in the worship to false idols… it was also common to the Egyptians and Canaanites during Moses’ time.
January 12, 2013 at 12:10pm
What your Bible translates as “those who practice homosexuality” is in the original Greek “Arsenokoitai”. “Arsenokoitai” is only found 2 places in the Bible, and in both places is in a list, so there is no context as to what the word truly means. “Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.” Literally it could be translated as male beds, or man- bedders. This particular word is not used anywhere in Greek Literature until some 200 years after Paul when it apparently means “pederast”, a corrupter of boys, and again in the sixth century (another 400 years) when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. These two interpretations of the word come from the context of which it is placed… something we cannot do in 1 Corinthians. If Paul had wanted to use homosexuals or homosexuality in these lists he would have used one of the common Greek words for male/male sexual behaviour, like “paiderasste.”
When Martin Luther translated this verse into German (1500s) he used the second century definition, and used what we would call “pedophiles” today. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexual. Recent studies show that the majority of pedophiles, some 90%, are heterosexual.
Taking this history into account, there is no justification to translate “Arsenokoitai” as “homosexuals” or anything to do with homosexuality.
January 12, 2013 at 12:05pm
Just where does God say it’s a sin? In the 10 commandments given to Moses? No… it’s not there. Oh, Leviticus… No, that was written for Hebrew priests, from the tribe of Levi, and not for the entire Hebrew population — which was given in Deuteronomy.
So in the NT, we have Paul’s writings… nothing directly from God or Jesus. And in Romans 1 Paul writes about those nasty idol worshipers who engage in same-gender sexual relations… but then calls out the Jewish readers in chapter 2 with a rebuke for judging the Gentiles of Rome.
Which leaves 1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy. However, the word Paul uses in these verses seems to come from the Greek translation of Leviticus — which was written for Hebrew priests from the tribe of Levi… So, where does that leave us? Not one place in the entire Bible where God calls it a sin. Hmmm
January 12, 2013 at 11:56am
The problem in your verses start with “Wherefore”… which indicates that what follows is based on what proceeded. So, what proceeds these verses you quote?
Romans 1: 21-23
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
So, the people being talked about in the verses you quote were worshiping idols to false gods. This is the CONTEXT of the entire passage.
January 12, 2013 at 11:50am
So what happened prior to this that God allowed this to happen. The verse you quote starts with “Therefore”, which implies that what happened in previous verses led to the outcome in the following verses. So, what happened??
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
So, according to the Bible, they were worshiping idols — statues made to represent false gods. It’s amazing how the whole thing changes when you read the full context. Unless, of course, you mean to call every gay person on the planet an idolater…
January 12, 2013 at 11:34am
Sounds like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time… so busy saying “at least I’m not a sinner like THAT person”… all the while ignoring their own sins.
Christ gave us two commands: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind
& Love your neighbor as yourself.
Many people who claim to “love” homosexuals, just not their “sin”, would be appalled if they were treated the way they themselves treat homosexuals out of “love”.
January 12, 2013 at 11:23am
Abomination is a cultural taboo. Every place it is used in the Bible is cultural. For example: It was an abomination (cultural taboo) to the Egyptians if they were to share a meal with the Hebrews — this is in Exodus. Notice, it wasn’t an abomination for the Hebrews, just the Egyptians.
When people spout out “abomination” like it’s the worst sin ever, just shows their ignorance of the Bible.